Politics and the Erosion of Federal Scientific Capacity: Restoring Scientific Integrity to Public Health Science

Abstract

Our nation's health and prosperity are based on a foundation of independent scientific discovery. Yet in recent years, political interference in federal government science has become widespread, threatening this legacy. We explore the ways science has been misused, the attempts to measure the pervasiveness of this problem, and the effects on our long-term capacity to meet today's most complex public health challenges. Good government and a functioning democracy require public policy decisions to be informed by independent science. The scientific and public health communities must speak out to defend taxpayer-funded science from political interference. Encouragingly, both the scientific community and Congress are exploring ways to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking.

A focus group based study of the perspectives of the Maltese population and healthcare professionals on medication wastage

“…20,21 In a commentary, Rest and Halpern argue that public policy decisions need to be informed by independent scientists rather than through political interference if one wants to ensure a good government and a functioning democracy. 22 Pham et al describe the importance of segregating 'macro-level decisions' generated at a political debate level from 'micro-level decisions'. 23 This is in line with participants' suggestions around the need to redefine political will.…”

Public health and the knowledge industry

“…A recently published commentary 22 strongly denounced how previous US government policies improperly undermined the fi ndings of solid research in order to further a political agenda. The basic principle defended by the authors is clear: sound public policy requires sound science, and the latter is being artifi cially destabilized by political actions.…”

Realigning science, society and policy in uncertain times

“…Individuals, groups and institutions have published, spoken out and even taken to the streets to protest about fake science, the suppression of real science and the denigration of honest scientists [8,[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] However, at times, responses have been subdued. Reasons that have been advanced have included the assumption that if the job of scientists is to provide information, then adopting a position will weaken their authority [54], fear of denigration, punishment or retaliation by other scientists or politicians with personal motives [55][56][57] and awareness that global threats involve complex processes and uncertain outcomes that can be very challenging to communicate to politicians and society [58,59], and that there are very large knowledge gaps to be overcome before messages will be taken on board [60]. With the advent of the Internet and social media, scientists have sometimes been wary of unpleasant or hateful responses if they react publicly to political stances or priorities or to the circulation of fake science.…”